IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4702 OF 2025 (CPC)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. A.Y. SATHYAVATHI W/O KRISHNE GOWDA S.B AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS NO.36/1, 13^TH MAIN KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060

2. SRI. SAGAR GOWDA S/O KRISHNE GOWDA S.B AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.36/1, 13^TH MAIN KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060

3. SMT. ANUSHKA Digitally signed W/O LATE SACHIN by ANJALI M AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS Location: High NO.36/1, 13^TH MAIN Court of Karnataka KENGERI UPANAGARA, KENGERI BANGALORE SOUTH-560 060 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. DHANUSH C S/O CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.113

4^TH CROSS, AGB LAYOUT SRIRAMANAGAR, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU-560 086 2. SRI. ASHISH V S/O V .MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 29 UYEARS RESIDING AT NO.109 VAD MANSION, HONNEGARADA ROAD KARISHMA HILLS, BEHIND KSYT COLLEGE GUBBALALA, SUBRAMANYAPURA POST BENGALURU-560 061 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. YOGENDRA H, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.6934/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-30), ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND

2 OF CPC.

THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This Misc.Fist appeal has been filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the 29^th Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.30) in OS No.6934/2024 whereby, the trial Court allowed I.A. No.1 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC granting an interim injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with the peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the respondents.

2. The appellants have contended that, the trial Court failed to consider materials records and erroneously granted the injunction despite serious disputes over title and the existence of acquisition proceedings concerning the land acquisition initiated by the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA).

3. The subject matter of the suit is site No.23 formed in Sy.No.36/1 of Vaddarapalya Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. The respondents claimed to have acquired the said site under registered Sale Deed dated 4.7.2024 from the legal heirs of one Sri H.S.Puttamadaiah. The vendor in turn, had allegedly purchased the site from one Ramanna in the year 1991. It is asserted that, Ramanna had the authority to sell the land through a General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the 1^st appellant - Smt.A.Y.Sathyavathi. Based on this lineage of title, the respondents claim lawful ownership and uninterrupted possession which according to them, is evidenced by mutation entries, property tax receipts, and other civic documentation. They claim to have been in open, peaceful and continuous possession for many years without obstruction.

4. The appellants deny the respondent's claim and assert that the power of attorney relied upon is fabricated and was never executed by the first appellant. It is their case that no valid transfer ever took place and that the respondents claim is an outcome of illegal and fictitious documentation. They further contend that, the entire extent of land comprised in Sy.No.36/1 was notified for acquisition by the Bengaluru Development Authority between 1989 and 1994 and respondent's claim cannot stand in the face of such acquisition. They also submit that, no valid layout was ever sanctioned in the said survey no. and therefore, any site carved out therein is illegal and non-existent in the eyes of law. The appellant's main contention is that, BDA has taken steps for acquisition and they have indepe